Current supply of NuBits (US-NBT, EU-NBT, CN-NBT, X-NBT) and NuShares (NSR) which in combination with current reserves we calculate the ‘equilibrium’ and whether NSR buybacks or sales will be performed to move closer to target reserve ratios.

The end of Friday UTC each week will the time for which the value of tier 4 buy side liquidity will be determined.

In the light of the price drop since then, I agree it’s tempting to use an adjusted price.
But I’m on the fence, because it’s against the terms of the motion.
I don’t think this is an emergency that justifies such a variation.
After all the buybacks are done because of BTC volatility.

You are so right, but I’ve already done too many things that violated terms.
I appreciate the discretion on FLOT side to react to unforeseen circumstances. Yet I don’t think this deviation is justified.

One major reason for the NSR buybacks is BTC volatility. The motion regarding buybacks states a point of time to determine the BTC price level, because of volatility. Why should the FLOT deviate from that?

This might be the first occasion in which the FLOT members need to form consensus before being able to continue.

I think FLOT needs to consider reasonableness here, and if we have no reasonable suspicion that the peg is in danger then proceed as written in motion. So there’s about a 10% difference in btc price, which gives about $20,000 less dollars, translating into a $2,000 reduction in buyback or about 5 btc. I propose that our ability to keep the peg does not depend on that 5 btc and therefore we should operate according to motion and the future reduction of buybacks by spending the money now will in effect smooth out even moderately sized differences, as long as they are stochastic and not systemic.

@Nagalim already beat me to it.
I’d like to answer in a more general way:
The peg is considered safe, if at least 15% if the NBT in circulation are in reserve.
We are way above that - otherwise no buyback would happen.

With numbers:
If you calculate with $370 per BTC, there are 204 BTC in the buyback pool. 10% of that equals 20.4 BTC.
So we are discussing about 3.6 BTC.

And finally:
the calculation doesn’t consider that 30,000 NBT have been deposited (in 2 deposits) by FLOT to the Poloniex gateway for which the proceeds haven’t been withdrawn to FLOT BTC address before end of Friday UTC (the deposits happened on Friday).
15% of these equal 4,500 NBT which have been considered in the calculation to be mirrored by reserves.
The BTC proceeds from the NBT sale should be in the order of magnitude of 75 BTC (assuming they have been traded at an average sale price of 400 USD per BTC; I can’t look that up from my mobile phone).
These 75 BTC are effectively reserve, but haven’t been included in the calculation (as they were on exchange and not on FLOT BTC multisig address).
That brings the buyback pool close to 300 BTC of which 10% would be 30 BTC instead of 24 BTC.

Unless I made some mistake, I’d like to ask:
do we still need to discuss about 3.6 BTC or can we execute the transcaction (following the NSR buyback motion) and deposit 24 BTC to the buyback now that @Nagalim verified, that the test deposits were credited.@Nagalim, please keep them - it’s only dust

Seeing as there is still an considerable amount of BTC not yet withdrawn to the FLOT multisig address I agree to stick to protocol and your original calculation. BTC seems to be recovering a bit as well.

considerable amount of BTC not yet withdrawn to the FLOT multisig address

Theoretically.
Practically I (ab)used the BTC on the NBT entry gateway to support the peg. Even with a spread of 0.005 the BTC were traded within hours. Currently there are no BTC to be withdrawn and over 34 grand NBT instead.

NSR holders might release me from my duties for repeated violations of terms of operating the gateways. More than once I used BTC that were meant to be withdrawn to support the buy side or NBT that were meant to be withdrawn to support the sell side.
Then again that made me realize, that a Nu funded dual side NuBot might be necessary to introduce a variable buffer in addition to the ALP and in addition or as replacement for the gateways.

Continuing the discussion from Current Liquidity:
TL;DR Have a custodian run a dual side NuBot on Poloniex with Nu funds to create a buffer and support the peg. This is a band-aid solution until e.g. T3 custodians and fixed cost compensation have eased the liquidity situation and improved the reliability of the peg. Poloniex as the exchange with biggest NBT trading volume is very important for customers evaluating the peg. /TL;DR
Assessment / Reasoning
This motion draft is trying to solve…

You should hurry with releasing me from my duties, though - if you’re not fast enough I’m confident that I will break down before.

Nu might be close to a breakthrough.
The recent BTC volatility will bring focus on stable crypto coins and NBT is just the most successful product in terms of peg.

On the other hand there’s still much friction between the tiers, liquidity flows need improvement.
That’s what brought Nu close to losing the peg for several times in the last weeks and the last few days were especially bad.
Only the very fast and resolute action of FLOT members could prevent that. There have been FLOT multisig NBT transactions broadcast in roughly 30 miniutes after the need was identified.

This is tiring for all who are involved in it. I experience an outstanding responsibility as gateway operator.
I would highly appreciate finding more community members willing to support the peg by operating NuBots on important exchanges, of which Poloniex seems to be of paramount importance.

Until the liquidity flow issues have been resolved, there’s nothing but the gateways, which allow the FLOT supporting a side on Poloniex directly.
Trading with an LP introduces just one more dependency, but dealing with that might sometimes take too long.

This is no rocket science, but takes time.
I’d appreciate it, if an NSR holder did the next calculation - and I’m not speaking necessarily of somebody who is already having a role or roles.

If nobody steps up to do it, I will include an operation fee in the next calculation I do.
I won’t sign other transactions related to the buyback that don’t include that fee. If the transaction I create gets replaced, signed and broadcast without that fee, I won’t do any more calculations.
I have come to the conclusion that NSR holders need incentives to start contributing. I’m just trying to motivate the so far passive shareholders
…and please: don’t step up and from the beginning start doing calculations that include a fee for you - you owe many in this forum.
There’s a lot of work which needs to be distributed between more contributers.